Impact on IFS if we avoid position setup

There are many areas of the application that rely on supervisor - subordinate access inherited by Employee Access. Employee access is multi-tiered. Position Access (based on position structure), Access Groups, HR Manager (God like access to all employees). In some shape or form you will have to manage employee access if you are using some of the below areas such as; time reporting, time approval, employee expense, project transaction amendments (There are more functions that rely on employee access). It all depends on requirements, data security and exposing personal information to all others in the organisation. I have never seen an implementation in my experience without position setup.

@malik.sally Thank you for your response.

Time/absence/expense approvals we’re managing through access roles, we’ve created manager roles under “access Role” screen and assigned related attributes and these roles are given to respective users through graphical organization structure access tab, so it works as a person with manager access role will have authority to approve/authorize above things. and through this only we’re managing supervisors for users, like users belonging to respective org will have a user who has manager role assigned so he/she can take care of approval things for his/her employees for that particular org. What are your thoughts on this setup? 

Conceptually it seems like a workable solution, unless it is extensively tested it is difficult to say that it is a robust solution. Also, downstream impacts will only be identified when the system is used, I know managing position structures / organization structures and access is a pain, but I am unsure whether  you will restrict yourself from harnessing some of the functions in IFS.